I have been a Nikon user since the early 70's, but if Apple bought Nikon I would switch in a heartbeat.

I want absolutely NOTHING to do with Apple.

-- hide signature --

The greatest of mankind's criminals are those who delude themselves into thinking they have done 'the right thing.'- Rayna Butler

Stranger things have happened, think Rolls Royce. Who would have thought in the 1970s and 80s that Minolta would disappear ?

This would be the worst thing that could happen to Nikon.

First, you would end up having to use iTunes to transfer your photos to the computer, including via card reader.

I'm assuming you are referring to music file interaction with iTunes. So what? ITunes is a very powerful and easy to use app to organize and purchase your music. You also do not need to buy your music only from iTunes.

Raws would be in a proprietry format only Aperture could read, as would video.

Apple doesn't use proprietary video or audio.

Apple would start suing anyone who made accessory parts for Nikon, including (probably especially) third party lenses.

Apple's mobile products have by far the most third party accessories available to them.

Yeah, this would be good for Nikon. NOT.

You sound like one of those Android using Apple hating people you run into on some tech sites. The vast majority being ignorant and irrational when it comes to things Apple related.

Try and gain a bit of perspective, these are simply electronics. When you die they will mean nothing.

-- hide signature --

The greatest of mankind's criminals are those who delude themselves into thinking they have done 'the right thing.'- Rayna Butler

1) iPhone has introduced millions of customers to creative photography and post-processing, which is fabulous in and of itself. iPhone dominates the low-end/consumer markets, and the quality of the sensor, lens, DSP and software keep improving with every iteration. Nikon's deep pool of talent and experience in the fields of optics and sensor design would lend themselves to iPhone development.

2) Apple lacks a higher end product for photography enthusiasts, prosumers, and professionals who desire, among other things, more flexibility, more features, better AF, better image quality, etc. If you want a higher end camera, you can't buy one from Apple. Instead, your money ends up going to a company such as Nikon, Canon, Sony, Olympus, or one of the many other competitors in the traditional camera market. It could instead be going to Apple.

3) Interchangeable lens system cameras remain a lucrative market for companies like Canon and Nikon. How many of us have bought a low-end consumer DSLR with kit lens, and thought "OK, I just need a nifty 50 and that'll complete my kit" only to buy additional gear because it's there, and we think it will make us better photographers? New lenses, external flashes, battery packs, these things all add up and provide additional revenue beyond the initial sale. Apple is no stranger to creating an ecosystem around a central product.

4) ILC purchasers often stay loyal to their brand for many years, if not a lifetime. You end up building a whole kit of equipment, including bodies, lenses, flashes, etc., all of which only natively work with your one brand. That kind of loyalty is similar to the loyalty associated with owners of Apple products.

5) Apple needs to maintain a strong presence in the high end photography/cinematography business in order to keep attracting customers to its higher end computing products (such as Mac Pro, Aperture, Final Cut X). Purchasing an established, respected brand with fierce customer loyalty and a tradition of excellence would reaffirm the synergy between Apple's products and these two critical markets.

6) Apple has the clarity of vision and the raw engineering talent to pull Nikon way ahead of the pack. Just off the top of my head, imagine if you combined Nikon sensors and optics with a retina touch display, Apple level build quality, quality control, and economy of scale, an Apple designed on-screen UI (hell, put iOS on there and allow use of Apps), AirPlay, and Thunderbolt. You'd have a camera that would be leagues ahead of anything else on the market, at a price that likely nobody else could match when looking at features.

7) Apple knows how to market way better than Nikon does. As much as we all love Ashton... Nikon has only had mixed success at marketing its 1 series to the masses as a lifestyle brand, and doesn't seem to be able to express why it is better than the competition in clear language.

I'm not saying Nikon needs Apple (though these days, the way the camera market is going, Nikon could probably use Apple's cash and engineering resources). But, Apple might do well by Nikon by bringing it under Apple's wing. Apple loves creating products that inspire, and having a high end imagining line to call its own would be a logical extension of the path that Apple has been taking for the past 10 years.

Your thoughts?

Is this a sick joke?

1) By post processing you really mean horribly clichéd filter effects for the hipsters? These people are not interested in post processing when every single photo is a sepia toned vignette. Conclusion: Disqualified argument.

Apple is doing things with its cameras that don't even exist in the most expensive dedicated camera systems. Their two colored LED flash that can changed color by varying the intensity of each color to compensate for varying lighting conditions is a perfect example.

2 & 3) Apple doesn't have the clientele you speak of. Apple's market share are for people who want simple choices, simple GUI's and streamlined products. ILC cameras are not simple products no matter what you do there is always in depth knowledge required for lens selection etc. Conclusion: Disqualified argument.

What are "ILC cameras?"

4) I don't understand what point you are making with this observation

5) This just doesn't make any sense that Apple need a camera to sell computer hardware & software. Such an idea is downright ridiculous.

6) Contentious. I think Apple's "engineering talent" is overhyped.

Have you ever seen the inside of most of Apple's products? Open a Mac mini or a MacBook Air, for example, and you would have to be delusional or in denial to think they do fantastic engineering.

7) Apple knows how to Market mass market products to people. You are asking them to market niche stuff to the mainstream... not so great an idea to be honest. Steve Jobs saved the company from doom; because he cut out ALL of their nichey stuff. You are suggesting Apple get involved with a niche market and try to convert it into the mainstream... its not a very good idea.

The Nikon 1 example.... is honestly appalling. It's not the marketing that's a failure, it's the product itself. Remind me which failure of a product apple has successfully marketed?

The other issue is that Apple is an anti-competitive company that prefers lawsuits to innovation. I don't want them in the camera market because it could spell release injunctions on other camera makers given Apple's general douchebaggery.

While there needs to be some overhaul of the patent systems around the world Samsung deserved most of the lawsuits taken against them. They clearly went out of their way to copy Apple at one time. That's not "innovation!" Only an irrational Apple hater would think otherwise.

I agree with your number 5. Apple is doing just fine with its camera development.

1) By post processing you really mean horribly clichéd filter effects for the hipsters? These people are not interested in post processing when every single photo is a sepia toned vignette. Conclusion: Disqualified argument.

Apple is doing things with its cameras that don't even exist in the most expensive dedicated camera systems. Their two colored LED flash that can changed color by varying the intensity of each color to compensate for varying lighting conditions is a perfect example.

Real world use?

You're hyping over one hell of a gimmicky product development that hasn't even been released...

It's not the colour tones that kill a cheap camera phone flash, it's the fact that it's shot parallel to the lens. I won't comment on the obvious output limitations either...

White light can be colour balanced, coloured light... not so much and you are letting an algorithm decide for you what looks good.

2 & 3) Apple doesn't have the clientele you speak of. Apple's market share are for people who want simple choices, simple GUI's and streamlined products. ILC cameras are not simple products no matter what you do there is always in depth knowledge required for lens selection etc. Conclusion: Disqualified argument.

What are "ILC cameras?"

Typo of ICL = interchangeable lens camera.

4) I don't understand what point you are making with this observation

5) This just doesn't make any sense that Apple need a camera to sell computer hardware & software. Such an idea is downright ridiculous.

6) Contentious. I think Apple's "engineering talent" is overhyped.

Have you ever seen the inside of most of Apple's products? Open a Mac mini or a MacBook Air, for example, and you would have to be delusional or in denial to think they do fantastic engineering.

Fantastic engineering? What do you propose is fantastic other than the fact that apple makes stuff that is shiny?

Take a macbook air for instance... it's no marvel, it's just a machine that's been cannibalised for thinness and low weight

They use proprietary screws, which means you cannot use a standard screwdriver...that is what I call universal engineering stupidity, I wonder are the screw threads anti clockwise too ? .

They solder ram, thus destroying any modular capability on the OEM front or USER front. So... they've got back to 40's methods in that department. Great "progress" of course and fits into their corporate paradigm in making people buy new machines instead of modular upgrading.

The speakers? Cheap, low output compromised components.

Battery life? Whats that!

7) Apple knows how to Market mass market products to people. You are asking them to market niche stuff to the mainstream... not so great an idea to be honest. Steve Jobs saved the company from doom; because he cut out ALL of their nichey stuff. You are suggesting Apple get involved with a niche market and try to convert it into the mainstream... its not a very good idea.

The Nikon 1 example.... is honestly appalling. It's not the marketing that's a failure, it's the product itself. Remind me which failure of a product apple has successfully marketed?

The other issue is that Apple is an anti-competitive company that prefers lawsuits to innovation. I don't want them in the camera market because it could spell release injunctions on other camera makers given Apple's general douchebaggery.

While there needs to be some overhaul of the patent systems around the world Samsung deserved most of the lawsuits taken against them. They clearly went out of their way to copy Apple at one time. That's not "innovation!" Only an irrational Apple hater would think otherwise.

I agree with your number 5. Apple is doing just fine with its camera development.

Apple are the #1 patent trolls, period. They proliferate the patent wars more than any other company.

5) Apple needs to maintain a strong presence in the high end photography/cinematography business in order to keep attracting customers to its higher end computing products (such as Mac Pro, Aperture, Final Cut X).

They scared a lot of customers away with their FCP X debacle and their xsan server customers were dumped too. More money in disposable phones and things you don't really need.

Your thoughts?

cults worry me.

-- hide signature --

In the beginning was the rhythm but I had forgotten and was waiting for the beat.

First, you would end up having to use iTunes to transfer your photos to the computer, including via card reader.

I'm assuming you are referring to music file interaction with iTunes. So what? ITunes is a very powerful and easy to use app to organize and purchase your music. You also do not need to buy your music only from iTunes.

Comprehension problems?

I said PHOTOS not music.

Raws would be in a proprietry format only Aperture could read, as would video.

Apple doesn't use proprietary video or audio.

Yes MOV files are loved by windows users.

Apple would start suing anyone who made accessory parts for Nikon, including (probably especially) third party lenses.

Apple's mobile products have by far the most third party accessories available to them.

They also go after ANYONE who does not play by THEIR rules. Apple's MO is to sue sue sue. Plus if they do not have complete control, they will not play.

Yeah, this would be good for Nikon. NOT.

You sound like one of those Android using Apple hating people you run into on some tech sites. The vast majority being ignorant and irrational when it comes to things Apple related.

Try and gain a bit of perspective, these are simply electronics. When you die they will mean nothing.

I have all the perspective I need. My wife owns ipod and iphone. I own android.

Mine is better in EVERY way.

My wife now wants an android phone for Christmas.

-- hide signature --

The greatest of mankind's criminals are those who delude themselves into thinking they have done 'the right thing.'- Rayna Butler

-- hide signature --

The greatest of mankind's criminals are those who delude themselves into thinking they have done 'the right thing.'- Rayna Butler

First, you would end up having to use iTunes to transfer your photos to the computer, including via card reader.

I'm assuming you are referring to music file interaction with iTunes. So what? ITunes is a very powerful and easy to use app to organize and purchase your music. You also do not need to buy your music only from iTunes.

Comprehension problems?

I said PHOTOS not music.

If you want to speculate on how iTunes would work for photo transfers, then it would probably be helpful to look at how iTunes already handles music transfers.

Also, there are already two dedicated photo apps which directly handle transfers — iPhoto and Aperture.

Raws would be in a proprietry format only Aperture could read, as would video.

Not as if NEFs aren't already "proprietary" or anything like that.

Try and gain a bit of perspective, these are simply electronics. When you die they will mean nothing.

I have all the perspective I need. My wife owns ipod and iphone. I own android.

Mine is better in EVERY way.

"Better in EVERY way" is probably factually wrong, but I'm still glad you're happy with your purchase.

1) iPhone has introduced millions of customers to creative photography and post-processing, which is fabulous in and of itself. iPhone dominates the low-end/consumer markets, and the quality of the sensor, lens, DSP and software keep improving with every iteration. Nikon's deep pool of talent and experience in the fields of optics and sensor design would lend themselves to iPhone development.

2) Apple lacks a higher end product for photography enthusiasts, prosumers, and professionals who desire, among other things, more flexibility, more features, better AF, better image quality, etc. If you want a higher end camera, you can't buy one from Apple. Instead, your money ends up going to a company such as Nikon, Canon, Sony, Olympus, or one of the many other competitors in the traditional camera market. It could instead be going to Apple.

3) Interchangeable lens system cameras remain a lucrative market for companies like Canon and Nikon. How many of us have bought a low-end consumer DSLR with kit lens, and thought "OK, I just need a nifty 50 and that'll complete my kit" only to buy additional gear because it's there, and we think it will make us better photographers? New lenses, external flashes, battery packs, these things all add up and provide additional revenue beyond the initial sale. Apple is no stranger to creating an ecosystem around a central product.

4) ILC purchasers often stay loyal to their brand for many years, if not a lifetime. You end up building a whole kit of equipment, including bodies, lenses, flashes, etc., all of which only natively work with your one brand. That kind of loyalty is similar to the loyalty associated with owners of Apple products.

5) Apple needs to maintain a strong presence in the high end photography/cinematography business in order to keep attracting customers to its higher end computing products (such as Mac Pro, Aperture, Final Cut X). Purchasing an established, respected brand with fierce customer loyalty and a tradition of excellence would reaffirm the synergy between Apple's products and these two critical markets.

6) Apple has the clarity of vision and the raw engineering talent to pull Nikon way ahead of the pack. Just off the top of my head, imagine if you combined Nikon sensors and optics with a retina touch display, Apple level build quality, quality control, and economy of scale, an Apple designed on-screen UI (hell, put iOS on there and allow use of Apps), AirPlay, and Thunderbolt. You'd have a camera that would be leagues ahead of anything else on the market, at a price that likely nobody else could match when looking at features.

7) Apple knows how to market way better than Nikon does. As much as we all love Ashton... Nikon has only had mixed success at marketing its 1 series to the masses as a lifestyle brand, and doesn't seem to be able to express why it is better than the competition in clear language.

I'm not saying Nikon needs Apple (though these days, the way the camera market is going, Nikon could probably use Apple's cash and engineering resources). But, Apple might do well by Nikon by bringing it under Apple's wing. Apple loves creating products that inspire, and having a high end imagining line to call its own would be a logical extension of the path that Apple has been taking for the past 10 years.

Your thoughts?

Not nikon.. Sigma. apple has a history of buying smaller companies who demonstrate a great deal of skill or creativity, but lack that brand name appeal. Not that sigma lacks appeal, but many of the people i encounter are unaware that they manufacture a dslr at all. their product line is already streamlined, and would require very little in the way of appleizing to make them fit in with the minimalist apple aesthetic. if apple is going to enter into the video sphere, they would benefit from sticking to a video-centric company to put their resources into

First, you would end up having to use iTunes to transfer your photos to the computer, including via card reader.

I'm assuming you are referring to music file interaction with iTunes. So what? ITunes is a very powerful and easy to use app to organize and purchase your music. You also do not need to buy your music only from iTunes.

Raws would be in a proprietry format only Aperture could read, as would video.

Apple doesn't use proprietary video or audio.

Yes MOV files are loved by windows users.

What I meant to say is that is does not require it for its devices or software. MOV is to Apple what WMV is to Microsoft and what Flash is to Adobe.

Apple would start suing anyone who made accessory parts for Nikon, including (probably especially) third party lenses.

Apple's mobile products have by far the most third party accessories available to them.

They also go after ANYONE who does not play by THEIR rules. Apple's MO is to sue sue sue.

They are obviously not going after many third party accessories manufacturers considering the huge lead they have for their devices. They have mainly gone after those that copied, like Samsung, and rightly so.

Plus if they do not have complete control, they will not play.

Well, I can install whatever I want on my Mac. As for iOS, with their control comes a vastly more secure environment and much higher quality apps and a better overall experience such as a smooth and responsive interface.

Yeah, this would be good for Nikon. NOT.

You sound like one of those Android using Apple hating people you run into on some tech sites. The vast majority being ignorant and irrational when it comes to things Apple related.

Try and gain a bit of perspective, these are simply electronics. When you die they will mean nothing.

I have all the perspective I need. My wife owns ipod and iphone.

No, I don't think you have perspective. You actually sound like a kid that, number one, places too much importance on pieces of metal, plastic, glass and wires and, number two, that has a fanatical and irrational distaste for the devices of a particular company that many people choose to use, and are happy to use, as opposed to what you use.

I own android.

I never would've guessed.

Mine is better in EVERY way.

No objective person with enough knowledge of iOS and Android would ever say that of either.

My wife now wants an android phone for Christmas.

No doubt due to your encouragement.

-- hide signature --

The greatest of mankind's criminals are those who delude themselves into thinking they have done 'the right thing.'- Rayna Butler

-- hide signature --

The greatest of mankind's criminals are those who delude themselves into thinking they have done 'the right thing.'- Rayna Butler

First, you would end up having to use iTunes to transfer your photos to the computer, including via card reader.

I'm assuming you are referring to music file interaction with iTunes. So what? ITunes is a very powerful and easy to use app to organize and purchase your music. You also do not need to buy your music only from iTunes.

Comprehension problems?

I said PHOTOS not music.

If you want to speculate on how iTunes would work for photo transfers, then it would probably be helpful to look at how iTunes already handles music transfers.

Also, there are already two dedicated photo apps which directly handle transfers — iPhoto and Aperture.

And Image Capture.

Raws would be in a proprietry format only Aperture could read, as would video.

Not as if NEFs aren't already "proprietary" or anything like that.

Try and gain a bit of perspective, these are simply electronics. When you die they will mean nothing.

I have all the perspective I need. My wife owns ipod and iphone. I own android.

Mine is better in EVERY way.

"Better in EVERY way" is probably factually wrong, but I'm still glad you're happy with your purchase.

It would be nice if everyone felt the same about what others choose to purchase.

The latest release from Apple shows they have lost direction... a simple rehash of the old design and another lower end phone with colors. All while the other manufacturers are long passing them by... That is the kind of forward design and product release thinking that Ricoh has done since taking over Pentax...K5II & K5IIS - plus a basket of colors for the low end models...

-- hide signature --

"It is not necessary to understand things in order to argue about them."~~ Pierre Beaumarchais~~

There would be a endless war of litigations against Canon, Sony, Olympus and Panasonic for patent infringement

HowardChernin wrote:

A few reasons:

1) iPhone has introduced millions of customers to creative photography and post-processing, which is fabulous in and of itself. iPhone dominates the low-end/consumer markets, and the quality of the sensor, lens, DSP and software keep improving with every iteration. Nikon's deep pool of talent and experience in the fields of optics and sensor design would lend themselves to iPhone development.